It looks like the Ukrainians have broken the siege of the City of Sumy a city of 260,000 in the north East of Ukraine.
good news and good for the Ukrainians, however it does appear to me at least in part because the Russians have withdrawn troops from the area, crossed back in to the boarder of Russia, to reinforce a deferent part of the front, probably the Donbass.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
Over a million people in the UK are intersex?
Really?
Sorry, I would more easily believe that to be out by orders of magnitude.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
The 1.7% figure is an upper bound estimate that covers a wide range of Nondimorphic Sexual Development conditions:
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
That figure seems surprisingly high. I'd be less surprised if it's a figure which has been artificially inflated by the trans lobby.
I think you are right that the 1.7% is an over-estimate. And so is the "vanishingly small numbers". There's a really good paper on the debate on what should and should not be included, and how the consensus is being established.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
Yep there's a lot of bad faith comms around this one.
I'm happy with either "adult human female" or (my pref) "adult of the female gender" as an answer but the question is being set as a trap for Labour atm and my point is to show how it can also be set as a trap for the Tories.
It's probably a good issue for them, the Tories, but it's not risk free.
So, if you and I are both happy with “adult human female”, why do so many politicians tie themselves in knots to avoid that phrase?
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Question - do Lia Thomas the swimmer and Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter have penises? (penes?)
The former certainly does, is still sexually attracted to women, dates them, displays their body in the womens changing room and has, according to reports by team mates, made them feel uncomfortable but still does so.
I don't believe Hubbard has surgically transitioned either. Something like 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria don't surgically transition, AIUI.
As a man (admittedly an old one) I consider Thomas' activity disgusting.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You know why. His activists would react to that like he'd said trans people need to be rounded up and executed.
If so, he's a coward and unfit to be leader let alone PM.
Yep.
By the way, this sort of thing is why people like me say they could only ever vote conservative - because, no matter how awful the Tories look, and no matter how reasonable and competent the Labour front bench looks, the party is -at the end of the day - led by its members. And a significant proportion of those members are complete lunatics.
That is why this issue is such a touchstone issue for me. I am a feminist and feel strongly about womens' rights.
But the second issue is that it shows Starmer to be a leader who can't or won't stand up to bullies or give a clear answer. Blair spoke sense on the topic recently. Even Boris did. Starmer comes out with tortured pained guff which both makes him look weak and contemptuous of voters. It is similar to his style over Brexit. It is painful. There is something dishonest about it. And if he can't do it over something like this how can I trust him to do it over really scary questions like Covid etc.
Yes, but that doesn't mean 99% of voters don't mind either way. 99% of voters are happy with the culture as they understand it to be. That suits those who are fighting the culture wars on behalf of the status quo ante bellum rather than those who are fighting for a new culture.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
I'm not convinced. The Manifesto is drawn up by the NEC, and if neither Starmer nor the unions are interested (and I'm quite sure they're not) it'll languish as something that came up sometime and we had a view on, but sorry, hasn't made it into the programme for Government. Labour isn't currently committed to legislating on anything much (which frustrates lefties like me though I can see the reason not to commit in mid-term). There will be other priorities.
It might be possible to legislate in some way that satisfied most people. But not doing anything seems the better course of action to me.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
Over a million people in the UK are intersex?
Really?
Sorry, I would more easily believe that to be out by orders of magnitude.
But that 99% get really pissed off when a party is dedicating time to fighting gender/sex wars when they really want to hear about what they will do for THEM in the cost of living crisis.
An extensive thread from BBC WS journos analysing Russian casualties, from looking at reporting in Russia, and contacts with families. Excellent reporting.
Actually in the 21st century arguably how you vote is more determined by your cultural values than your income and class as it was in the 20th century.
There is a much greater difference between how rural and urban areas and older and younger people vote now for instance than there is between the rich and middle and low earners
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
The culture wars are coming almost exclusively from the left, not from the Tories.
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
Over a million people in the UK are intersex?
Really?
Sorry, I would more easily believe that to be out by orders of magnitude.
Mr. Adams, that 1.7% figure for intersex is orders of magnitude wrong, according to The Psychology Of Gender And Sexuality by Stainton Rogers and Stainton Rogers.
It looks like the Ukrainians have broken the siege of the City of Sumy a city of 260,000 in the north East of Ukraine.
good news and good for the Ukrainians, however it does appear to me at least in part because the Russians have withdrawn troops from the area, crossed back in to the boarder of Russia, to reinforce a deferent part of the front, probably the Donbass.
Those Russian troops to the east if Kyiv look to be in a potentially tricky spot. If the Ukrainians can close that noose....
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
Difference perhaps is in voter reaction. The man in the street will be on Tory side, and it's the sort of thing that definitely is discussed at the bus stop. Neither applies to Israel.
But that 99% get really pissed off when a party is dedicating time to fighting gender/sex wars when they really want to hear about what they will do for THEM in the cost of living crisis.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
That's biologically illiterate. Your ranting about this subject is idiotic. Women can't have penises and men can't have vaginas. It's really no more complicated than that. A woman is an adult human female. Get that into your thick skull.
Well, it depends what you're talking about. Gender and sex are generally held to be distinct, albeit related. That someone can feel as though they should have been a woman and be born a biological male isn't controversial and forms the basis of gender dysmorphia. In my post I was referring to 'woman' or 'man' in terms of gender.
Biological sex is different, but can still be pretty complicated in edge cases. Intersex people do exist and often end up being raised as the gender they most closely identify with (or are identified with). Must a man have testicles? Surely not, is the answer. Must a man even be born with testicles, or even a penis? Again, biology tells us that it's not required. Vagina or vulvas for Women? Biology is weird and people can be born, present outwardly and be raised as girls and women without female gonads or genitals. On the point of biology, gender also likely has a biological component. Ben Barres, who was born a woman, believed a hormonal imbalance during gestation resulted in their own dysmorphia. I generally agree with Cyclefree on this issue, that sex based protections should receive a lot more attention in this debate. I suspect I would go a smidge further in that individuals who have fully transitioned and have lived for X amount of years should benefit from the sex based protections that the law affords (perhaps excluding some limited spheres).
The 'problem' is one of language, I believe. We need a word that includes gender distinctly. May I suggest 'Ladies' for people who identify as woman and 'Blokes' when talking about those identifying as men? Therefore, the answer to the question of whether a woman could have a penis could be 'Outside of intersex individuals, then no a woman does not have a penis.' BUT if someone asked if a Lady could have a penis? Well, you could answer that a lady never tells...
I sort of was vaguely aware they weren't permanent, but it appears they are extraordinarily young on a galactic timescale, and will be an extremely short-lived feature.
IMHO, it's about 50/50 whether the Conservatives win the next election. The voters are remarkably forgiving, and Boris has got two big calls right - Covid and Ukraine.
I think there is a more than 50% chance the Conservatives win most seats or even a majority in England on current polls after the boundary changes. Yet also a more than 50% chance Starmer becomes UK PM with SNP support
I'd say something like 35-40% chance of a Tory majority and 50% chance of the Tories remaining in power. Tories heavily favoured to retain most seats although I personally think they'll struggle to get more than 300 under any leader unless Johnson or his potential successor is 10%+ ahead as best PM making direct comparisons with 2017.
Even 300-310 seats though would not be enough for the Tories to stay in power now as it was in 2010 as the LDs would almost certainly not support Johnson's Tories over Starmer Labour as they supported Cameron's Tories over Brown Labour.
So the Tories would need to get at minimum 315-320 seats if they lose their majority to have any chance of staying in power with the DUP again a la 2017. Though that too would require them to trigger Art 16 to get DUP support
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
The culture wars are coming almost exclusively from the left, not from the Tories.
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Perhaps not the Tories directly but you can't say almost exclusively from the left. The Express, the Telegraph, and of course GBeebies are all putting out all kinds of shock horror threat stories about this.
Frankly woke wars is manna from heaven for news editors. Make up your own story that exorcises your audience so that there are plenty of easy follow-up stories that practically write themselves.
Both left and right-wing mouth-foamers have form on this one. The reason why its hard for the majority to express a view on something like can a woman have a penis is because it provokes such extreme reactions. And yes. They can.
An extensive thread from BBC WS journos analysing Russian casualties, from looking at reporting in Russia, and contacts with families. Excellent reporting.
And thanks for the coffee machine comments yesterday.
Good research piece, thanks.
So it appears that the Russian casualties are disproportionally officers, paratroopers and special forces, with losses among high-skilled pilots, weapons operators and elite soldiers. What a shame.
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
The culture wars are coming almost exclusively from the left, not from the Tories.
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Why do people write such Apprentice-style self-aggrandising guff on their CVs? No you are not "An inspirational commercial leader with [ ] a sharp eye for detail" - you're coming to the headhunter saying the last 2 moves you made were shit and you want to backtrack and get some stability having fucked up your career path.
Probably because they have grown up watching the Apprentice.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Question - do Lia Thomas the swimmer and Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter have penises? (penes?)
The former certainly does, is still sexually attracted to women, dates them, displays their body in the womens changing room and has, according to reports by team mates, made them feel uncomfortable but still does so.
I don't believe Hubbard has surgically transitioned either. Something like 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria don't surgically transition, AIUI.
As a man (admittedly an old one) I consider Thomas' activity disgusting.
Lia Thomas is a cheat. The message that is going out to female swimmers is "You can only aspire to being second, at best".
Disgusting. This is not progress in any sense.
Indeed, if more male swimmers do what Lia has done, you could easily end up in a position where all the top female swimmers are of the male sex.
It looks like the Ukrainians have broken the siege of the City of Sumy a city of 260,000 in the north East of Ukraine.
good news and good for the Ukrainians, however it does appear to me at least in part because the Russians have withdrawn troops from the area, crossed back in to the boarder of Russia, to reinforce a deferent part of the front, probably the Donbass.
Stunningly detailed maps of the military situation in Ukraine. Magnify to get the local detail. Kudos to those Finns for creating this resource.
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
Difference perhaps is in voter reaction. The man in the street will be on Tory side, and it's the sort of thing that definitely is discussed at the bus stop. Neither applies to Israel.
Is there any polling evidence for that? Not doubting you, merely curious.
An extensive thread from BBC WS journos analysing Russian casualties, from looking at reporting in Russia, and contacts with families. Excellent reporting.
And thanks for the coffee machine comments yesterday.
I was surprised at their shock at the comments from a grieving mother.
People deal with grief, sometimes, by rage and anger. Weird conspiracy stuff is another layer in this.
Some relatives in Argentina reacted to the loss of ARA San Juan by coming up with an elaborate conspiracy theory that it was sunk with depth charges dropped from an RN helicopter....
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
Over a million people in the UK are intersex?
Really?
Sorry, I would more easily believe that to be out by orders of magnitude.
Some argue that including these people as genuinely “intersex” is a stretch, done to make the condition appear more widespread than it genuinely is.
Although interestingly the symptoms of the condition often cause the most obvious outward indications of intersexuality (e.g. body and facial hair).
In women. In men, the list doesn't appear to include any female-associated traits.
If we include LOCAH in intersex, we move so far away from the lived experiences of intersex people that we seriously risk undermining the necessary policy response.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You know why. His activists would react to that like he'd said trans people need to be rounded up and executed.
If so, he's a coward and unfit to be leader let alone PM.
Yep.
By the way, this sort of thing is why people like me say they could only ever vote conservative - because, no matter how awful the Tories look, and no matter how reasonable and competent the Labour front bench looks, the party is -at the end of the day - led by its members. And a significant proportion of those members are complete lunatics.
That is why this issue is such a touchstone issue for me. I am a feminist and feel strongly about womens' rights.
But the second issue is that it shows Starmer to be a leader who can't or won't stand up to bullies or give a clear answer. Blair spoke sense on the topic recently. Even Boris did. Starmer comes out with tortured pained guff which both makes him look weak and contemptuous of voters. It is similar to his style over Brexit. It is painful. There is something dishonest about it. And if he can't do it over something like this how can I trust him to do it over really scary questions like Covid etc.
Wonder if it's anything to do with being a lawyer. Seeing both sides. And, if necessary, acting as an advocate for either side. You do sometimes get the impression that lawyers who go into politics are just articulating a brief - perhaps it's just the way they present, the performative aspect which they can't shake off? Not that Starmer is a Rumpole-style performer though...just seems passionless. Curious. Not sure what to make of him.
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
The culture wars are coming almost exclusively from the left, not from the Tories.
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
I know less about golf than Sunak knows about the lives of non-billionaires but is a hole in one hard? If you play golf constantly decades on end, as the fat orange fucc boi clearly has, won't you get one eventually?
I seem to recall some golf dude wrote a book about Trump and his cheating at golf. He made the point that Trump really is a pretty good golfer, but still lies about just how good.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
If Corbyn was in Downing Street wouldn't we be on Russia's aide?
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
The culture wars are coming almost exclusively from the left, not from the Tories.
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Coming exclusively from the left? Wut?
Well you get some limited fightback from the right, admittedly. But the right were perfectly happy with the culture as it was in, say, 2012. If someone comes along and tried to change your culture, and you say 'no', that doesn't make both sides equally culpable of fighting the culture wars. One side is fighting a culture war. The other is half-heartedly resisting it.
Sterling work from Ballot Box Scotland as usual on Glasgow locals, and tasty stuff for electoral nerds everywhere. Short summary, SNP probably safe as largest party, SLab have hopes of increase possibly at expense of SCons, SCons shaky, Greens have high hopes possibly of seats in double figures, SLDs stuffed again.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
If Corbyn was in Downing Street wouldn't we be on Russia's aide?
That alternative reality doesn’t bear thinking about, as someone emotionally involved in this conflict.
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
Difference perhaps is in voter reaction. The man in the street will be on Tory side, and it's the sort of thing that definitely is discussed at the bus stop. Neither applies to Israel.
Is there any polling evidence for that? Not doubting you, merely curious.
Not aware of any. Just my gut feeling. Most people I know (admittedly an unrepresentative sample) seem to think the trans stuff is bonkers and take a dim view of those talking it up.
Hardly anyone has a view on Israel.
No advantage to Labour in either issue becoming higher profile.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
If Corbyn was in Downing Street wouldn't we be on Russia's aide?
That's what I'm laughing at. Obviously, what's written in manifestos should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
But the bit about amending the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is quite specific. If Labour were in power and brought forward legislation on self ID, then it's not certain that they'd get it through parliament. I doubt Rosie Duffield is alone in her views.
Why do people write such Apprentice-style self-aggrandising guff on their CVs? No you are not "An inspirational commercial leader with [ ] a sharp eye for detail" - you're coming to the headhunter saying the last 2 moves you made were shit and you want to backtrack and get some stability having fucked up your career path.
Probably because they have grown up watching the Apprentice.
It's because of the number of automated systems which scores CVs on the number of uses of each word. It isn't for the human reader.
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
The idea that there are transgendered individual has been around for decades. I think 15 years ago, the notion that, yes, there are a small number of people of one gender trapped in the body of the other gender would have been accepted by most people as true, with sympathy being expressed for the people in that situation.
Something (many things!) has changed since then. The current polarisation of debate seems to take us ever further away from sensible policies to make people's lives better. Is that about the "culture wars"? Labour should be able to come up with answers to these sorts of questions that respects the party's beliefs on trans rights, while reassuring voters that this isn't an issue that will have any real bearing on most of them (contrary to those who want to weaponise it against them), and that the party is focused on the big issues that do affect them: the cost of living crisis, Ukraine, Partygate.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
That's biologically illiterate. Your ranting about this subject is idiotic. Women can't have penises and men can't have vaginas. It's really no more complicated than that. A woman is an adult human female. Get that into your thick skull.
Well, it depends what you're talking about. Gender and sex are generally held to be distinct, albeit related. That someone can feel as though they should have been a woman and be born a biological male isn't controversial and forms the basis of gender dysmorphia. In my post I was referring to 'woman' or 'man' in terms of gender.
Biological sex is different, but can still be pretty complicated in edge cases. Intersex people do exist and often end up being raised as the gender they most closely identify with (or are identified with). Must a man have testicles? Surely not, is the answer. Must a man even be born with testicles, or even a penis? Again, biology tells us that it's not required. Vagina or vulvas for Women? Biology is weird and people can be born, present outwardly and be raised as girls and women without female gonads or genitals. On the point of biology, gender also likely has a biological component. Ben Barres, who was born a woman, believed a hormonal imbalance during gestation resulted in their own dysmorphia. I generally agree with Cyclefree on this issue, that sex based protections should receive a lot more attention in this debate. I suspect I would go a smidge further in that individuals who have fully transitioned and have lived for X amount of years should benefit from the sex based protections that the law affords (perhaps excluding some limited spheres).
The 'problem' is one of language, I believe. We need a word that includes gender distinctly. May I suggest 'Ladies' for people who identify as woman and 'Blokes' when talking about those identifying as men? Therefore, the answer to the question of whether a woman could have a penis could be 'Outside of intersex individuals, then no a woman does not have a penis.' BUT if someone asked if a Lady could have a penis? Well, you could answer that a lady never tells...
"Well, it depends what you're talking about. Gender and sex are generally held to be distinct, albeit related. "
By whom are Gender and Sex regarded as distinct? It is only up to a few years ago that they were considered the same. It is a very vocal and aggressive minority that is pushing the view the two are different,
"Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth."
Would you like to define "intersex". Are we discussing 'sex' as a biological fact, or 'gender' which can be anything you like. I've stuck to a distinct syndrome which, incidentally, has wide error bars. It may be less common - but it's unlikely to be more frequent.
"What's a woman?" may be difficult for some, but "what's a scientist?" is easier. Someone who uses scientific methods. I'm not suggesting you need to use scientific nomenclature or methods - you'd never get a definite decision on some things. But short of analysing a truely random sample (difficult) or the whole population (impossible), error bars or ranges give us consistentency.
In the end, it won't be science that convinces people, and nor should it. If you hear anyone say "It's been proven", or "it's known for certain," substitute it for "It's very likely," or "It's possible," depending on the source.
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Issue a statement"? Then he and every other Labour politician refers to it - "The party's position is set out in that statement. I have nothing further to add. Next question..... "
Personally, I don't think that would work politically from a presentation point of view, and imagine the Labour leadership feel the same. It would still be an open wound to attack for interviewers, and over time, repeated avoidance of discussion would not be enough from one side of the debate, who would still feel him to be evasive in interviews, and at the same time piss off others on the other side of the debate.
I don't think that's the reason. It's because they are in hock to the TRA's but don't want to admit it. See my response to @NickPalmer.
When people feel strongly about an issue they often end up with a "with us or against us" attitude and both "sides" of this debate seem to have taken that. There are plenty of us in the middle ground who are not on either side, for a whole range of reasons.
True. On this issue in particular though I find certain extreme positions are finding such traction I feel pushed into the other side by default.
I find some of the agitating for quicker change side treat some complex parts as though it's very simple, and treat some very simple things as complex, which is how we end up with various gotcha questions.
But that 99% get really pissed off when a party is dedicating time to fighting gender/sex wars when they really want to hear about what they will do for THEM in the cost of living crisis.
Works for both parties, though.
I can honestly say which toilets our local Conservative activists use is not a hot topic....
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Issue a statement"? Then he and every other Labour politician refers to it - "The party's position is set out in that statement. I have nothing further to add. Next question..... "
Your piece is more what a policy statement would be rather than a response to the soundbite "what is a woman?" question.
And it would be good to see one from all of the main parties. Perhaps we will.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
That would be a very sensible answer Nick were it not for the fact that Labour are proposing to legislate on the issue.
If they are going to legislate then they should be able to explain clearly why, what mischief the new legislation is intended to address and how exactly they propose to preserve the sex-based rights contained in the Equality Act. They can do none of these things but come out with tortured nonsensical language which suggests that either they don't understand the issue and/or are trying to hide something. Neither of these positions are likely to engender trust.
I have suggested upthread an answer. Why can't Labour say that?
My view is that it is because they have been captured by the Stonewall brigade, do intend replacing sex with gender and are trying to hide the fact that this will inevitable adversely impact existing rights for women.
Maybe I am wrong on this. But every time a Labour politician opens their mouth on this question that is the clear impression they give and I have been following this quite closely now for some time.
I simply do not trust Labour to protect my current sex-based rights. I am not the only woman who feels that way though I know that other women take a different view. Still it ought to worry Labour. Despite disliking pretty much everything about Boris I found myself inwardly cheering when he said last week at PMQ's that biology matters when it comes to the differences between men and women.
Question - do Lia Thomas the swimmer and Laurel Hubbard the weightlifter have penises? (penes?)
The former certainly does, is still sexually attracted to women, dates them, displays their body in the womens changing room and has, according to reports by team mates, made them feel uncomfortable but still does so.
I don't believe Hubbard has surgically transitioned either. Something like 80-90% of people with gender dysphoria don't surgically transition, AIUI.
As a man (admittedly an old one) I consider Thomas' activity disgusting.
Lia Thomas is a cheat. The message that is going out to female swimmers is "You can only aspire to being second, at best".
Disgusting. This is not progress in any sense.
Indeed, if more male swimmers do what Lia has done, you could easily end up in a position where all the top female swimmers are of the male sex.
Emily Bridges, who may compete in the commonwealth games, could have the same effect in womens cycling.
"Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth."
Would you like to define "intersex". Are we discussing 'sex' as a biological fact, or 'gender' which can be anything you like. I've stuck to a distinct syndrome which, incidentally, has wide error bars. It may be less common - but it's unlikely to be more frequent.
"What's a woman?" may be difficult for some, but "what's a scientist?" is easier. Someone who uses scientific methods. I'm not suggesting you need to use scientific nomenclature or methods - you'd never get a definite decision on some things. But short of analysing a truely random sample (difficult) or the whole population (impossible), error bars or ranges give us consistentency.
In the end, it won't be science that convinces people, and nor should it. If you hear anyone say "It's been proven", or "it's known for certain," substitute it for "It's very likely," or "It's possible," depending on the source.
I (and others) link to papers upthread that provide a pretty good summary of the debate, and the (numerous) papers of the kind you describe that contribute to it.
I would expect the next Parliament to be either hung or a small conservative majority
Just listened to Kay Burley ask Angela Rayner can a woman have a penis ?
The world has gone mad
I was trying to think when the Trans issue got out of hand, and I think it is when they tried messing around with the language. I am happy to let anyone change their birth gender, it is up to that individual and should only be restricted
One advantage of the question being asked now is that it will be possible to stop the question being asked come the election because the answer should be - I answered that in 2022 and nothing has changed.
But the actual question is there because there is no answer that works. The question has 2 possible answers both of which will seriously annoy x% of the population and as @NickPalmer points out any answer isn't going to help you as it's the same as two neighbours arguing over a neighbourhood issue - whatever you do will upset 1 person and not go far enough for the other 1.
I think there are more votes to be won by being ostentatiously neutral - say ad nauseam that you don't want to get into the issue, sorry, and the next Government will not be legislating on the issue. Most people will approve, and the x% on both sides who don't will mostly in the end vote on other issues. So long as you keep message discipline, there comes a point when it's no longer fun for journalists to use up their quota of questions asking about it.
The problem, is that it’s only an issue for certain political parties.
Whoever is the Conservative leader at the next election, they are likely to say that a woman is an adult human female, and wait for the other parties to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid quoting the dictionary definition of the word.
Follow up questions to that Con leader -
By female do you mean biological sex or legal gender? Biological sex. So to be a woman you must be born female? Yes. So why do we have a legal route to change gender if such a change is meaningless?
(Just to illustrate it's not *quite* such a slam dunk the other way as many seem to think.)
Exactly! Gotcha questions like that really boil my piss. What it needs is a robust response on those lines. 'Can a woman have a penis?' 'Yes, of course they can, just as a man may have a vulva. It's well established scientifically that in some cases a person's gender is not reflected by their biological sex and there exist legal routes for people to live and be recognised as their preferred sex. While the rights of trans people require careful balancing against existing sex based protections in order to stop potential loopholes and abuse, a woman may have a penis. In my experience they tend not have one very often.' Sky news, having got their clip of me saying 'Yes of course' have already packed up their kit and begun the process of editing my rant.
Yep there's a lot of bad faith comms around this one.
I'm happy with either "adult human female" or (my pref) "adult of the female gender" as an answer but the question is being set as a trap for Labour atm and my point is to show how it can also be set as a trap for the Tories.
It's probably a good issue for them, the Tories, but it's not risk free.
So, if you and I are both happy with “adult human female”, why do so many politicians tie themselves in knots to avoid that phrase?
Because they think they'll get shouted at less for equivocation than saying that.
"Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth."
Would you like to define "intersex". Are we discussing 'sex' as a biological fact, or 'gender' which can be anything you like. I've stuck to a distinct syndrome which, incidentally, has wide error bars. It may be less common - but it's unlikely to be more frequent.
"What's a woman?" may be difficult for some, but "what's a scientist?" is easier. Someone who uses scientific methods. I'm not suggesting you need to use scientific nomenclature or methods - you'd never get a definite decision on some things. But short of analysing a truely random sample (difficult) or the whole population (impossible), error bars or ranges give us consistentency.
In the end, it won't be science that convinces people, and nor should it. If you hear anyone say "It's been proven", or "it's known for certain," substitute it for "It's very likely," or "It's possible," depending on the source.
Intersex is about physical presentation. The lower bound is infants with visible reportable differences of sex anatomy (c. 0.59% of all births) and the upper bound is set by reference to non-physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels (1.7% although this is arguably both under- and over-inclusive).
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
Over a million people in the UK are intersex?
Really?
Sorry, I would more easily believe that to be out by orders of magnitude.
Some argue that including these people as genuinely “intersex” is a stretch, done to make the condition appear more widespread than it genuinely is.
Although interestingly the symptoms of the condition often cause the most obvious outward indications of intersexuality (e.g. body and facial hair).
In women. In men, the list doesn't appear to include any female-associated traits.
If we include LOCAH in intersex, we move so far away from the lived experiences of intersex people that we seriously risk undermining the necessary policy response.
I agree; and that's why the discussion in the literature is so important; and why I also dug a bit beyond the "google consensus number" because - as others have suggested, it sounded open for debate!
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
To be fair, the 2019 manifesto also said this - "Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision"
But what Labour politicians do not explain is how self-ID is compatible with this.
The only way it can be is if they make clear that you can continue to exclude someone from a single sex space on the grounds of their unchanged sex even if their gender has changed ie transwomen can be kept out of female only spaces. The Equality Act does permit this.
But this is not what the TRAs want. And that is the problem with the Labour position - they are saying incompatible things to different groups and are now being found out.
There is a way through all this and I have given my attempt upthread. But Labour aren't even trying - it's all impatient sighs and exasperation and contempt - and this simply will not do.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
If Corbyn was in Downing Street wouldn't we be on Russia's aide?
We would very likely have withdrawn our training of Ukraine forces in 2017 and would have supplied zero NLAWs to them, as the most obvious sign.
Whether he would have supplied Russia with intelligence on Ukraine is moot. "To stop the war...."
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
Gender/sex debate? The only people making it difficult are the sociologists looking for a purpose. I don't claim to be up with the latest research, but I did lecture briefly on an MSc course on Environmental Toxicology. My subject area was the basics of sexual differentiation.
There are male bodies, and there are female bodies. The intersex problems are extremely rare, and are caused by chromosomal or genetic mutations. Some are restricted to specific geographical locations.
Often the genetic cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, (AIS) possibly responsible for no more than 1 in 20,000 XY births. That's a maximum figure. The androgen receptor on the X chromosome is partially or totally unresponsive to androgens. Despite the body having male levels of testosterone, it can, at worst (if worst is the correct word), be as much use as candy floss. The default body is female, but the Y chromosome produces a protein that masculinises the internal structure of the embryo while leaving the external structure female.
Thats a simplified over view.
Scanning the brain isn't the be-all and end-all it was once thought, but testosterone (via oestrogens, ironically), does affect the embryonic and foetal brain.
We always knew what a female was. If somebody wants to be one, who happens to not have the usual requirements, we can go along with it to be polite or civil. I would, particularly if they were polite and civil themselves.
You can see why scientists don't want to become involved. Sociologists don't count as scientists.
Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth.
That figure seems surprisingly high. I'd be less surprised if it's a figure which has been artificially inflated by the trans lobby.
Remember all those decades when we were solemnly informed by activists that 10% of the population were gay?
Every such movement wanting everybody else to obey their opinions has their statistical myths / deceptions, whether gay rights, trans rights, feminists, or any others.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
It strikes me that the culture wars to the Tories are what is Israel to the nuts part of Labour
The culture wars are coming almost exclusively from the left, not from the Tories.
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Coming exclusively from the left? Wut?
Well you get some limited fightback from the right, admittedly. But the right were perfectly happy with the culture as it was in, say, 2012. If someone comes along and tried to change your culture, and you say 'no', that doesn't make both sides equally culpable of fighting the culture wars. One side is fighting a culture war. The other is half-heartedly resisting it.
To me the idea of a culture 'war' was American and necessitated wedge issues to cleave the working classes (and increasingly low earning minorities) from the Democratic party. Admittedly the Democrats neglect of their core votes economic interests made it far too easy for Republican strategists.
As HYUFD says similar cultural division has now occurred in the UK although Labour still have the majority of lower income voters it is the older retired, or soon to be who had supported Labour that swing it for Johnson. Brexit was the perfect wedge to divide young from old for FPTP. While all the gender stuff keeps them riven.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
If Corbyn was in Downing Street wouldn't we be on Russia's aide?
We would very likely have withdrawn our training of Ukraine forces in 2017 and would have supplied zero NLAWs to them, as the most obvious sign.
Whether he would have supplied Russia with intelligence on Ukraine is moot. "To stop the war...."
On LGBT+ I wonder if Corbyn would have taken the view of err... some interesting people, that the "apparent liberalism" in Israel is actually due to bigots using the issue as an attack the Arab world.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
Kay Burley bought it up, because Starmer got tied up in knots trying to answer the question during a radio phone-in yesterday.
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
If Corbyn was in Downing Street wouldn't we be on Russia's aide?
We would very likely have withdrawn our training of Ukraine forces in 2017 and would have supplied zero NLAWs to them, as the most obvious sign.
Whether he would have supplied Russia with intelligence on Ukraine is moot. "To stop the war...."
We would have done nothing after his election, with a far greater possibility that anything would have happened whilst Europe was sitting on its butt from 2017 onwards, Ukr would have had a lowe probability of stopping the Russian invasion, and would be more likely to have fallen rapidly.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
Kay Burley bought it up, because Starmer got tied up in knots trying to answer the question during a radio phone-in yesterday.
Wasn't that asked by a right-wing person? As I said, she's reporting the news
Number 10 are braced for the prime minister and his inner circle to be among them [those fined]. After all, he was one of the first to be sent a legally binding questionnaire on 11 February. Some others contacted by the investigation only received a questionnaire last week.
..a prime minister even being investigated by the police is serious - being given a questionnaire equivalent to an interview under caution is unprecedented. If he is found to have broken COVID regulations, questions about his leadership are bound to return. Even the heavily edited report by senior civil servant Sue Gray blasted "failures of leadership and judgment" in Downing Street.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
I dont think that really works. There definitely are Tories or those on the right who elevate these matters and extreme instances, I've said before less is more on the subject.
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
"Major debate"? Where, on Twitter? On PB?
Well now we're getting into a flap about what major means. I use it in terms of significant for those interested in the subject matter.
After all, the issue affects a small minority of people but the outcome is still major to them.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
You are trying to deflect a real problem for labour
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
I don't believe this claim that Starmer can't give an answer on the trans/womens issue that will satisfy most people.
Here is an answer which is both legally and scientifically correct.
"Females (the female sex) do not have penises. Only the male sex does. There are some men who have gender dysphoria and who get a Gender Recognition Certificate. Legally, they are treated as women for most (though not all) purposes and since the majority do not surgically transition there are people who are legally women who have penises (but who remain of the male sex). In the same way, in the opposite direction, there are women who transition to men who remain biologically female. This is important to realise because it affects the health care they will need since some diseases are correlated to your biological sex.
We think it right that people with gender dysphoria should be allowed to have a GRC in order to live their lives freely as the gender they believe themselves to be. But we also believe that in doing so this must not limit or diminish the sex-based rights of others. So, since sex cannot be changed and given the importance of combating sex-based oppression, discrimination and violence, particularly against women and girls, we will not be making any changes to the sex-based characteristics or exemptions in the Equality Act.
We will be looking to see how we can improve medical care and support for people with gender dysphoria since current delays are unacceptable. We will not be removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis because it is important that people do get good quality care and that the GRA is not misused by those who are not dysphoric.
Finally, those who attack or threaten women or transpeople or who use vile, vicious language against them, who try to shut them down or abuse them are beyond the pale and do not belong in this party."
There.That wasn't so hard. Issue a statement like that and a lot of the questions go away. It is a policy which the vast majority can get behind.
That's all Starmer has to do. He either can't or won't. Why?
You really think he gets the time to say that on a TV interview? Wow.
Did you miss the bit where I said "Issue a statement"? Then he and every other Labour politician refers to it - "The party's position is set out in that statement. I have nothing further to add. Next question..... "
Your piece is more what a policy statement would be rather than a response to the soundbite "what is a woman?" question.
And it would be good to see one from all of the main parties. Perhaps we will.
That is why I describe it as a statement. It is in my view the only way to make Labour's position clear - assuming that they want to do so. I have my doubts.
I am not fighting a culture war - and nobody I know in the Labour Party is either. It seems to be Tories that keep bringing it up
Is Kay Burley a tory now as she raised it with Angela Rayner this morning on Sky ?
No, what a load of bad faith nonsense from you
Just counters your comment which is simply not the case
No, I said the people bringing up the culture wars are the right.
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
It must look super weird from your perspective. The right keep bringing up something that they don't want changed, despite the left never mentioning it.
Comments
https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/091194
It looks like the Ukrainians have broken the siege of the City of Sumy a city of 260,000 in the north East of Ukraine.
good news and good for the Ukrainians, however it does appear to me at least in part because the Russians have withdrawn troops from the area, crossed back in to the boarder of Russia, to reinforce a deferent part of the front, probably the Donbass.
Really?
Sorry, I would more easily believe that to be out by orders of magnitude.
https://ihra.org.au/16601/intersex-numbers/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09685332211003636
But really, really important to large groups of party activists.
But the second issue is that it shows Starmer to be a leader who can't or won't stand up to bullies or give a clear answer. Blair spoke sense on the topic recently. Even Boris did. Starmer comes out with tortured pained guff which both makes him look weak and contemptuous of voters. It is similar to his style over Brexit. It is painful. There is something dishonest about it. And if he can't do it over something like this how can I trust him to do it over really scary questions like Covid etc.
It might be possible to legislate in some way that satisfied most people. But not doing anything seems the better course of action to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_onset_congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia
Some argue that including these people as genuinely “intersex” is a stretch, done to make the condition appear more widespread than it genuinely is.
An extensive thread from BBC WS journos analysing Russian casualties, from looking at reporting in Russia, and contacts with families. Excellent reporting.
What do we definitely know about #Russian military casualties in #Ukraine? BBC in-depth research of verified military losses found some interesting tendencies \1
https://twitter.com/oivshina/status/1508478951995420675
And thanks for the coffee machine comments yesterday.
There is a much greater difference between how rural and urban areas and older and younger people vote now for instance than there is between the rich and middle and low earners
What you’re seeing from the Tories, is some pushing back now that the arguments are not simply about more rights for one group with no consequences for others (gay marriage etc), but genuine conflicts of rights between different groups of people.
Biological sex is different, but can still be pretty complicated in edge cases. Intersex people do exist and often end up being raised as the gender they most closely identify with (or are identified with). Must a man have testicles? Surely not, is the answer. Must a man even be born with testicles, or even a penis? Again, biology tells us that it's not required. Vagina or vulvas for Women? Biology is weird and people can be born, present outwardly and be raised as girls and women without female gonads or genitals. On the point of biology, gender also likely has a biological component. Ben Barres, who was born a woman, believed a hormonal imbalance during gestation resulted in their own dysmorphia. I generally agree with Cyclefree on this issue, that sex based protections should receive a lot more attention in this debate. I suspect I would go a smidge further in that individuals who have fully transitioned and have lived for X amount of years should benefit from the sex based protections that the law affords (perhaps excluding some limited spheres).
The 'problem' is one of language, I believe. We need a word that includes gender distinctly. May I suggest 'Ladies' for people who identify as woman and 'Blokes' when talking about those identifying as men? Therefore, the answer to the question of whether a woman could have a penis could be 'Outside of intersex individuals, then no a woman does not have a penis.' BUT if someone asked if a Lady could have a penis? Well, you could answer that a lady never tells...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/03/saturn-losing-rings-nasa-moons/629391/
I sort of was vaguely aware they weren't permanent, but it appears they are extraordinarily young on a galactic timescale, and will be an extremely short-lived feature.
So the Tories would need to get at minimum 315-320 seats if they lose their majority to have any chance of staying in power with the DUP again a la 2017. Though that too would require them to trigger Art 16 to get DUP support
Frankly woke wars is manna from heaven for news editors. Make up your own story that exorcises your audience so that there are plenty of easy follow-up stories that practically write themselves.
Both left and right-wing mouth-foamers have form on this one. The reason why its hard for the majority to express a view on something like can a woman have a penis is because it provokes such extreme reactions. And yes. They can.
So it appears that the Russian casualties are disproportionally officers, paratroopers and special forces, with losses among high-skilled pilots, weapons operators and elite soldiers. What a shame.
Disgusting. This is not progress in any sense.
Indeed, if more male swimmers do what Lia has done, you could easily end up in a position where all the top female swimmers are of the male sex.
People deal with grief, sometimes, by rage and anger. Weird conspiracy stuff is another layer in this.
Some relatives in Argentina reacted to the loss of ARA San Juan by coming up with an elaborate conspiracy theory that it was sunk with depth charges dropped from an RN helicopter....
If we include LOCAH in intersex, we move so far away from the lived experiences of intersex people that we seriously risk undermining the necessary policy response.
Step 1: Left starts a culture war
Step 2: When Right retaliates, Left complains that Right is stoking a culture war.
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 39% (-)
CON: 35% (-)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 3% (-1)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 25 - 27 Mar
Chgs. w/ 20 Mar"
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality.
I don't recall it getting much attention at the last election. If this is in the next manifesto, the Tories will make sure it gets plenty of attention.
Also, this made me laugh:
Respond fast and firmly wherever LGBT+ people face violence or persecution internationally and appoint a dedicated global ambassador to the Foreign Office on LGBT+ issues.
We'd be at war with Russia if Corbyn was in Downing Street.
But the right were perfectly happy with the culture as it was in, say, 2012.
If someone comes along and tried to change your culture, and you say 'no', that doesn't make both sides equally culpable of fighting the culture wars.
One side is fighting a culture war. The other is half-heartedly resisting it.
Hardly anyone has a view on Israel.
No advantage to Labour in either issue becoming higher profile.
But the bit about amending the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is quite specific. If Labour were in power and brought forward legislation on self ID, then it's not certain that they'd get it through parliament. I doubt Rosie Duffield is alone in her views.
Something (many things!) has changed since then. The current polarisation of debate seems to take us ever further away from sensible policies to make people's lives better. Is that about the "culture wars"? Labour should be able to come up with answers to these sorts of questions that respects the party's beliefs on trans rights, while reassuring voters that this isn't an issue that will have any real bearing on most of them (contrary to those who want to weaponise it against them), and that the party is focused on the big issues that do affect them: the cost of living crisis, Ukraine, Partygate.
By whom are Gender and Sex regarded as distinct? It is only up to a few years ago that they were considered the same. It is a very vocal and aggressive minority that is pushing the view the two are different,
"Slight correction to your "extremely rare" - about 1.7% of the population are intersex. Obviously, social norms mean that most intersex people live as their sex-assigned-at-birth."
Would you like to define "intersex". Are we discussing 'sex' as a biological fact, or 'gender' which can be anything you like. I've stuck to a distinct syndrome which, incidentally, has wide error bars. It may be less common - but it's unlikely to be more frequent.
"What's a woman?" may be difficult for some, but "what's a scientist?" is easier. Someone who uses scientific methods. I'm not suggesting you need to use scientific nomenclature or methods - you'd never get a definite decision on some things. But short of analysing a truely random sample (difficult) or the whole population (impossible), error bars or ranges give us consistentency.
In the end, it won't be science that convinces people, and nor should it. If you hear anyone say "It's been proven", or "it's known for certain," substitute it for "It's very likely," or "It's possible," depending on the source.
I find some of the agitating for quicker change side treat some complex parts as though it's very simple, and treat some very simple things as complex, which is how we end up with various gotcha questions.
....just as long as they can use them often!
And it would be good to see one from all of the main parties. Perhaps we will.
As for if a woman can have a penis, I think, yes? Haven't there been cases where this has happened? Do they normally have a penis, no
They're right.
https://ihra.org.au/16601/intersex-numbers/
But whether it is called a culture war or not that pushback is not taking place in a vacuum. People who are not natural Tories are raising these issues and not from a right wing partisan perspective.
So terminology aside there is a major debate occurring and it isnt being invented by Tories, even if they hope to benefit and perhaps even exploit it.
"Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision"
But what Labour politicians do not explain is how self-ID is compatible with this.
The only way it can be is if they make clear that you can continue to exclude someone from a single sex space on the grounds of their unchanged sex even if their gender has changed ie transwomen can be kept out of female only spaces. The Equality Act does permit this.
But this is not what the TRAs want. And that is the problem with the Labour position - they are saying incompatible things to different groups and are now being found out.
There is a way through all this and I have given my attempt upthread. But Labour aren't even trying - it's all impatient sighs and exasperation and contempt - and this simply will not do.
I bet if ordinary people were being fined they would be named and shamed.
For instance the man who was fined for "standing outside" in Hillingdon was named in the media: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/covid-lockdown-fine-garden-party-b1991715.html
If we see a court case, then names will be published.
Whether he would have supplied Russia with intelligence on Ukraine is moot. "To stop the war...."
Kay Burley brought it up because the right keep bringing it up. Her job is to report the news, the right are trying to make it the news, unfortunately.
Every such movement wanting everybody else to obey their opinions has their statistical myths / deceptions, whether gay rights, trans rights, feminists, or any others.
The Government has said that it will say if Johnson is fined.
As HYUFD says similar cultural division has now occurred in the UK although Labour still have the majority of lower income voters it is the older retired, or soon to be who had supported Labour that swing it for Johnson. Brexit was the perfect wedge to divide young from old for FPTP. While all the gender stuff keeps them riven.
Drop everything and read this paper: https://nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29874/w29874.pdf?utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_source=PANTHEON_STRIPPED
The bottom line: Managers with MBAs are the best at taking money from workers and not much else.
The findings are damning of business schools, business education, & business "optimizing" practices.
Number 10 are braced for the prime minister and his inner circle to be among them [those fined]. After all, he was one of the first to be sent a legally binding questionnaire on 11 February. Some others contacted by the investigation only received a questionnaire last week.
..a prime minister even being investigated by the police is serious - being given a questionnaire equivalent to an interview under caution is unprecedented. If he is found to have broken COVID regulations, questions about his leadership are bound to return. Even the heavily edited report by senior civil servant Sue Gray blasted "failures of leadership and judgment" in Downing Street.
After all, the issue affects a small minority of people but the outcome is still major to them.
Strarmer was all over the place and Burley's question referred directly to Starmer
@Kle4 provided the correct response to you at 11.31am
What should I be scared of exactly?